Question on Celica Gt and RSX [Archive]

Raulvargs

01-19-2002, 01:11 PM

I'm considering both cars right now. They are very close performance wise but once the RSX's get broken in and get into the hands of more drivers I think they will post slightly better numbers then Celica's. It'll still be a drivers race though. Valuewise, I think the RSX takes the cake. The interior is much better quality then the Celica. The place where the Celica has a huge advantage over the RSX is exterior styling. A stock RSX is pretty boring-looking. It's a hard decision to make. I personally was going to get an RSX type-S cuz I wanted performace but now that I realized that I have to get an Automatic, I'm going with the Celica. I figure, if I'm not going to have performance at least I'll get the best looking car.

ovejo

01-19-2002, 09:51 PM

ewwwwww automatic type-s... :worried

BlueBomber

01-20-2002, 12:55 AM

Hello.

Sorry to sound like an arse, or something.. but there are no automatic Type-S' in case u're wondering... all RSX-S' are manual...

Anyways, I own a 2001 Celica GT 5-speed and my brother owns a 2002 RSX 5-speed with Premium package, so I've driven both cars before. And don't get my wrong.. I love my car to death, but I also like the RSX as well. The RSX base model is definitely more powerful than a Celica GT, mainly because of its torque. RSX has 160-hp with 141 lbs. ft. torque and is only 200 lbs heavier than the Celica GT, while Celica GT only has 140-hp and 126 lbs. ft. of torque... RSX does 0-60 in about the mid 7's while the Celica GT does 0-60 in about high 7's. The difference between the two cars is definitely greater than the difference between the Celica GTS and the RSX-S. Keep that in mind... so I wouldn't necessarily say this is a "driver's race"... the RSX does have the advantage.

Lookwise, it's really matter of opinion. I like the look of my car, and my brother likes the look of his car.

However, the Celica is definitely sportier looking.. no doubt about that.. It sits lower than the RSX and the car's height is lower itself. Suspension is also stiffer in the front of the Celica, but softer in the back, compared to the RSX. In terms of taking corners, I think the Celica is capable of taking a corner at a higher speed and seems more stable, mainly because the Celica GT comes with better tires for gripping the road. Also, just the shape of the car gives it an advantage.

In terms of cost, RSX is definitely a better buy. You get many luxury features (moon roof, side mirror defoggers, and seat warmers... err.. actually i'm not sure if they have them in the States) for a pretty decent price. For the Celica, it's about the same cost, but u don't get as much.

Lastly, when it comes to shifting, the RSX is much easier to shift.. The clutch is softer.. not so stiff.. and shifting with the knob is much easier (the Celica definitely requires more effort).. however, the Celica's shift-throws are shorter than the RSX. In addition, the RSX powerband is quite linear because the gears are further apart, so the Celica tends to rev higher at the same speed. For engine noise, the Celica is louder at lower rpm, but when u get the rpm up, they're pretty much the same. However, the RSX has a deeper tone, so.. it really depends on what u want.

yea...

Maelfyn

01-20-2002, 03:39 AM

blah blah blah all **** talking. Let's see some slips.

BlueBomber

01-20-2002, 10:15 AM

You don't need timeslips. If you have half-a-brain and some common sense, u'll realize that the RSX is faster, but only ever so slightly. Try using some math to figure out the power-to-weight ratios and u'll see that the RSX is indeed more powerful. Don't jus fall into denial. Open ur eyes. The Celica (altho I love it so much) is not the most powerful car out there.

Da Kine Guy

01-21-2002, 03:17 PM

Yeah, but slips are awfully nice to see for backing up claims.

BlueBomber

01-21-2002, 03:56 PM

i suppose. but sometimes it's just more efficient to use common sense. 200 lbs is not a lot and the RSX has 20 more hp and 15 more lbs ft of torque. u don't even needta calculate a thing. jus think it over in ur head and u'll see that the RSX is slightly quicker. altho yes, timeslips would be nice, but u can't really make a general statement with jus a timeslip. u always hafta take a margin of error into account.

BoonyBoun

01-21-2002, 08:18 PM

Common Sense tells me that 200lbs is A LOT.:tongue:

BlueBomber

01-22-2002, 10:10 AM

Bah. Forget it. I'm wasting my time with the likes of you. Okay, here. Your Celicas are the best in the world. Nothing else can beat them. Okay? Now you can go back to your fantasy land filled with purple moons, green hearts, and pink clovers. Otherwise, open up your mind and face facts.

Da Kine Guy

01-22-2002, 12:25 PM

Ahhh, the lovely purple moon setting on the grove of pink clovers, its makes my green heart warm. All we're saying is that from seeing slips and watching these two cars compete (GT-S and Type-S) the results are not very one-sided. Sometimes the GT-S wins, sometimes the RSX wins. I watched two guys race 6 times against eachother at the tracks, both seemed about equal in terms of driving skill level. Each guy won 3 and lost 3, all by very small margins.

BlueBomber

01-22-2002, 01:57 PM

Ah, Da Kine Guy, you're right. The Celica GTS and the RSX Type-S are very similar for speed and it would definitely be a driver's race in THAT case. That definitely wouldn't be one sided. However, the person who originally posted this message wanted information on the Celica GT and the RSX base model. And in that case, the difference between the two is greater.

Da Kine Guy

01-22-2002, 03:27 PM

:doh:

Musta got lost in the commotion, I've been coming to this thread via links in my email. Have yet to see a regular ol' RSX, or GT for that matter, race at the strip yet, so I don't have anything personal to base any kind of opinion on. Seems to me like it wouldn't be too bad of a race, seeing as how some of the GT times posted here are really low 15's.

BlueBomber

01-22-2002, 03:50 PM

You're right again. It wouldn't be a bad race at all. However, I think it wouldn't be as close as a Celica GTS and RSX Type S. I haven't seen them at the strip either, but I've driven both cars, so I have a feel for them. Also raced my brother too and although he did beat me, his car was only slowly walking away from mine.

XteSy17

01-23-2002, 07:12 AM

i raced an rsx type-s....we were both almost even but he pulled a little and i had a bad trans at the time....but it was really close and i was very unimpressed

97prizzzm

01-23-2002, 04:50 PM

i would go with the GT. just read about the celica vs. rsx races honda SUCKS toyota is the best of course :D

BlueBomber

01-23-2002, 06:13 PM

heh. a typical, "i'm the best" kinda guy eh, 97prizzzm? u should try relying on fact instead of stories that people tell. remember that there're always two sides to a story, so don't always believe what u hear. and i think honda and toyota are equally good for the most part, altho i think honda does have a bit more of a racing edge, judging by its history. ur too one-sided. open ur mind.

CeliMatz

01-25-2002, 02:33 PM

Power to weight for the GT and the RSX are tha same. Try thinking of gearing too. Also, the GT suffers from tire hop when the clutch is dropped. The RSX does not. this can affect 0-60 times usually around 0.5 seconds. With all this taken into account, it comes down to who the better driver is. Nothin else to it...

Zeroyon

01-25-2002, 11:40 PM

OK, let me get this straight...why exactly are the RSX-S and GT-S any closer a match than the base RSX and GT? There is a 20hp difference between the S's and a 20 hp difference between the bases. The RSX-S weighs more than the GT-S (2767/2500), the base RSX weighs more than the GT (2694/2495). The S's both have 6 speeds, the bases both have 5 speeds. Other than your own personally drawn observations, what makes you think theres a bigger difference between the base models than the top-of-the-line models? Anyways, the power/weight ratio for the base RSX is 16.8, for the GT 17.8, a difference of just a pound. Seems kinda close to me. However, that minor advantage would be omitted by insignificant factors such as the RSX having a heavier driver or more fuel in its tank. I believe it would be a drivers race, neither car has a distinct advantage. Although the RSX is more powerful, it weighs 199 lbs more, and since the power/weight ratios are so close, just calculating numbers isn't enough to say the RSX will be better just because. A member in a local car club of mine just got a 2002 base 5-spd RSX, I have a 2002 Celica GT 5-spd. For both of us, these are our first manual vehicles, so there is no distinct advantage in driving ability or experience. As soon as the local strip opens up, we plan to take them down the track and see who is faster. Maelfyn, I think I've seen you post that you go to Capitol a lot, I'll be looking for you sometime during the coming season. I should be there with some members of my crew on the first test and tune night, whenever it is.

Maelfyn

01-26-2002, 03:27 AM

Hey what's up. I gave up on this thread a long time ago. I don't care what the potential of a given car is. We can sit around and talk about the potential of the RSX and GT all day. A parallel would be the potential of Xanatos' or Darkstar's turbo automatic GTs. But at the same time I have a feeling we may never see a time slip come from these cars. Why? Because they are probably embarrassed that they are not beating my time, or at least not by very much. I don't think there is much prestige for being a dyno queen.

All I care about is what the drivers have accomplished. That's why I'm always giving RSX people **** on their own forum because in a way I'd like to see them get out there and push their cars and see what they can get out of them. Just friendly competitiveness.

Zeroyon: I look forward to seeing you guys at Capitol next season. I am eagerly awaiting the track to open up! :) When I am the first GT driver to get a 14 second pass naturally aspirated, perhaps you will be there to see it with your own eyes while the rest of the world watches on. I can live with that.

Also, what is the car club you are talking about? Micrew.net?

Maelfyn

01-26-2002, 03:40 AM

Oh and sitting around calculating power to weight ratios isn't going to give you an accurate real world 1/4 mile time. If that were the case we could just sit around and type in different numbers all day and jerk off to the results.

Max flywheel horsepower never tells the whole story. There are other factors to consider such as how strong is the powerband? Is it very strong throughout the entire band or is it peaky? What about suspension? Which is better for traction purposes? For example a Buick Grand National has a great suspension and launches like a beast. Other cars such as the Supra lack in this department and are notorious for traction problems. Other things to consider are gearing which goes hand in hand with the powerband. After a shift into the next gear, how strong is the powerband from that point? How much horsepower is the car losing through the transmission (whp). Drag coefficient is another factor to consider.

Celimatz: You are wrong.

BlueBomber

01-27-2002, 08:23 AM

Maelfyn: Sorry, but I really hafta say that drivers like you are kinda pathetic. Not in terms of driving, of course. I seriously doubt I can get my Celica GT down to 15.008 sec in the 1/4 mile. That is very good, indeed. But your attitude is really sh*tty! Nothing wrong with being competitive, but I don't think you should be giving the guys at ClubRSX any of your ****. It's called "good sportsmanship." Familiar with this term? Go ahead and post your time up at their site, but you should remember the difference between being a competitor and being a nuisance before giving them any of your ****. Otherwise, I hope I can beat your time in the 1/4 mile so I can laugh in your face. Sorry for sounding so rude in my earlier messages, as well as this one.

Anyways, I too have pretty much given up on this topic and will be moving along, so this is my last post here.

CeliMatz

01-27-2002, 09:21 AM

Maelfyn: "you are wrong" what is this? way to back that up...

Maelfyn

01-27-2002, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by CeliMatz
Maelfyn: "you are wrong" what is this? way to back that up...

What makes you think the RSX doesn't suffer from wheel hop and a GT somehow is so different and it does? Correct me if I'm wrong but most, if not all production front wheel drive cars are going to run into wheel hop. Suspension tuning and tire pressure can always help to alleviate this problem.

CeliMatz

01-27-2002, 08:39 PM

Read it in Road and Track..

Maelfyn

01-27-2002, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by CeliMatz
Read it in Road and Track..

I'm not sure what made that particular journalist feel that way. But it was probably right after he said the GT-S runs a 15.8 stock.

Raw Iron 1

01-28-2002, 09:36 AM

Hello.

The RSX Type S is stick only. HOWEVER, the "PREMIUM EDITION" comes with a "sport shift" 5-speed automatic. I drove my sister's 2002 RSX automatic. I think I would know what tranny the damn thing had since I drove the thing! The list of RSX tranny specs for 2002 is listed below. 1 in 14 2002 RSXs comes with an automatic.

Also below is the only comparison test I could find. Carpoint's tests are always slower than anyone else's, but it is the only comparison that I could find.

Jason

2002 RSX tranny and gear ratios...

Transmission

5-speed manual transmission* Ratios (:1)

1st 3.266
2nd 1.880
3rd 1.212
4th 0.921
5th 0.738
Reverse 3.583
Final Drive 4.388

6-speed manual transmission** Ratios (:1)

1st 3.266
2nd 2.130
3rd 1.517
4th 1.147
5th 0.921
6th 0.738
Reverse 3.583
Final Drive 4.388

5-speed automatic transmission with Sequential SportShiftTM and Grade Logic Control*** Ratios (:1)

1st 2.684
2nd 1.500
3rd 0.984
4th 0.733
5th 0.571
Reverse 2.000
Final Drive 4.562
*Standard on RSX
**Standard on RSX Type S
***Optional on RSX only (not available on RSX Type S)

Source: http://www.acura.com/model_RSX/rsx_spec_results.asp

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2002 Acura RSX
Auto Reviews
Daniel Heraud's Test Drive

RSX : 2.0-liter, manual 6-speed
Engine: 2.0-liter L4
Horsepower: 200 @ 7400
Torque: 142 @ 6000

Acceleration: 0-60 mph in 8.7 sec. 1/4-mile in 16.1 sec.

Top Speed: 130 mph

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Celica : 1.8-liter, 6-speed manual
Engine: 1.8-liter L4
Horsepower: 180 @ 7600
Torque: 130 @ 6800

Acceleration: 0-60 mph in 8.2 sec. 1/4-mile in 16.1 sec.

Top Speed: 115 mph

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: WWW.CARPOINT.COM

The Game

01-28-2002, 10:17 AM

I've seen GT-S's hit more than 115 mph???

BlueBomber

01-28-2002, 01:16 PM

Heh. Sorry. I'm back again. Couldn't stay away from this topic. It's just too hilarious when I see some of these postings. Celica GT-S 0-60 in 8.2 and RSX Type-S 0-60 in 8.7? Whoever drove these must've fell asleep behind the wheel. Motor Trend has the Celica GT-S doing 0-60 in 6.6 and the RSX Type-S 0-60 in 7.2. Road & Track has the Celica GT-S doing 0-60 in 7.2 and the RSX Type-S 0-60 in 6.7. Quite odd don't you think? Celica GT-S vs RSX Type-S really depends on the driver.

blairjbird

01-29-2002, 12:53 PM

i blew the doors off a rsx.i was really surprised though we hit it from like a 40mph punch.i want to get one from the line though that would be a good race

Zeroyon

01-29-2002, 06:37 PM

Who cares about the GT-S and Type-S? This topic is dealing with the base models. Anyways, I agree with Maelfyn that just by spitting out numbers like horsepower, weight, torque and such anyone automatically say "This car will win because of this!" There are simply too many variables. When it warms up around here and the track opens I'll run my car, and hopefully there will be at least one RSX driver there who'll be willing to try me. Whatver the results are, it still won't prove anything conclusively because of the number of variables. I'm simply leaving my opinion as it's a driver's race, neither car has a sigificant advantage that would put it ahead of the other 100% of the time.

BlueBomber

01-29-2002, 10:15 PM

Zeroyon: You're right in a sense. It's not always about numbers. But then.. can't you say that about any race then? isn't it all about variables? let's say some guy's driving a celica gts vs. my celica gt. now if we're racing, and he starts off the line slightly later, then i'll win (assuming nothing else goes wrong). so what ur saying is that it's always down to the driver? if a Toyota Echo and an Acura NSX raced one another, would u say it's down to the driver? i dunno bout the rest of u, but for the most part, when i compare two cars, i assume that the drivers are equal and perform in a natural manner. therefore, i don't really take them into consideration. otherwise, u can do that for any race, really. i'm not totally disagreeing with u, however... becuz u do always need a driver to drive a car... but then u can't really make comparisons becuz different ppl drive differently. simple as that.

jotan82

01-30-2002, 08:16 AM

all in all... the proof is in the puddin

slips will tell ya the truth...

calculate all you want, talk as much as you can... but slips tell the undeniable truth... period

Zeroyon

01-30-2002, 10:46 AM

No, that is not what I meant. If you read the post again you'll see that what I meant was that this particular race, between a Celica GT and a base RSX is simply too close to call. The cars are closely matched and just because someone spits out some figures doesnt mean the GT or the base RSX will win 100% of the time. A race between the two, instead of being mainly about hp output (unlike your proposed NSX/Echo bout) will come down to a lot of other factors, such as weight, track conditions, and driver experience. My main point was just because the RSX is more powerful, or the GT is lighter doesnt mean anyone can run around saying the RSX or the Celica is the infinitely better car with respect to performance. My only complaint was with your earlier statement:
"so I wouldn't necessarily say this is a "driver's race"... the RSX does have the advantage."
I just explained why I disagree. Your statement makes it seem that the RSX has the upper hand all of the time. You can't just throw out some numbers and say that this is so, because there are other things to take into consideration. The cars are very closely matched and like jotan said, slips tell the undeniable truth.

BlueBomber

01-30-2002, 11:04 AM

i disagree with jotan82. indeed slips tell the truth... but can u possibly tell me u can get that same time or better that's on the slip everytime? there IS such a thing as luck y'know. if u and i race, and u beat me 99 times, but i manage to beat u once, getting a faster time than any of ur others, would u say my car is faster just becuz of one occurrence? and u can't possibly tell me that the only way u'll believe something is by seeing it. that's bs. if everyone believed only in what they saw, there'd be no one believing in God. and when i made that statement, i was referring to a very technical aspect. sorry if i didn't make it clear, but i was speaking without referring to drivers, track conditions, etc. perhaps the statement was wrong to make, but i totally disagree with ur "timeslips" are everything attitude.

Da Kine Guy

01-30-2002, 12:03 PM

LOL, we've come full circle again in this thread! Now we're back to the whole slips thing. I know one thing that is a definate, the Celica GT kicks the living **** outta the RSX in the looks department. Goddamn Civic inspired Acura looks.

BlueBomber

01-30-2002, 03:08 PM

heh. i agree with u, da kine guy. lookwise, the celica is MUCH better... 'course that's an opinion, but that's my opinion. woo! yea, it's a shame that the RSX doesn't look to eye-catching.. it's too plain... 'cept for the headlights and tailights. i like those. they're kool.

ovejo

01-30-2002, 08:16 PM

man... today i saw the celica comercial in some mexican channel
wow... it was nice, its the one with the red Celica with the action package looking fast (?) lol

I think in the end it all comes down to looks since they are both good cars.

Some people say that RSX interior is nice, but I thought it looked like ****, Celica interior is so much more nice. I think that its pretty clear that RSX is just a civic with 160 hp with the Acura logo.

redtuna

01-30-2002, 09:05 PM

Dunno about you guys, but I thought that Acura kinda copied Toyota for their RSX interior.. I mean look at the round vents and the layout... wut a ripoff, the only thing they changed is the coin holder/cup holder..

BlueBomber

01-30-2002, 09:53 PM

heh. true, the RSX did copy the round vents, but i recall that the Toyota Celica wasn't the first to have it either. a few other cars also copied this round vent look. i don't remember which car was the original for the idea tho.

Da Kine Guy

01-31-2002, 12:21 AM

Originally posted by BlueBomber
heh. true, the RSX did copy the round vents, but i recall that the Toyota Celica wasn't the first to have it either. a few other cars also copied this round vent look. i don't remember which car was the original for the idea tho.

Yeah, Tercel did :)

Zeroyon

02-01-2002, 11:40 AM

You made a good point about the slips, as I hadn't thought about it from that point of view. However, that is how the majority of people in this thing think, if Lisa Kubo throws down a 9.1 second timeslip and Chris Rado has a 8.9, they will assume that Rado has the faster car, although he won't be the fastest in every case. I don't know where you got the whole "I wont believe it until I see it" mentality and associated it with me because that isn't how I think. Like I said earlier, and the orginal thought I stand by is that a race between these two particulcar cars would be a very close one that depends on factors other than power or weight. --Oh yeah, vents? vents??

BlueBomber

02-04-2002, 01:22 PM

Heh. Sorry if I made it sound like I was associating it with u. I jus meant that most people in this message board seem to have that mentality. But yea, u pose a very good point. There are many factors that one must consider, which does make this a close race, indeed.

ToyoGT

02-04-2002, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Maelfyn
Oh and sitting around calculating power to weight ratios isn't going to give you an accurate real world 1/4 mile time. If that were the case we could just sit around and type in different numbers all day and jerk off to the results.

Max flywheel horsepower never tells the whole story. There are other factors to consider such as how strong is the powerband? Is it very strong throughout the entire band or is it peaky? What about suspension? Which is better for traction purposes? For example a Buick Grand National has a great suspension and launches like a beast. Other cars such as the Supra lack in this department and are notorious for traction problems. Other things to consider are gearing which goes hand in hand with the powerband. After a shift into the next gear, how strong is the powerband from that point? How much horsepower is the car losing through the transmission (whp). Drag coefficient is another factor to consider.

Celimatz: You are wrong.

Supras have traction problems? Since when? And solid rears are almost always going to out launch independent rears....

It's all right I'm just giving you sh*t. i've seen my brother and all his supra friends beat up on AWD's and 5.0's...of course half of them have high stalls while the others, 2steps...launching with boost is a beautiful thing to see :D

ToyoGT

02-04-2002, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by Maelfyn

I'm not sure what made that particular journalist feel that way. But it was probably right after he said the GT-S runs a 15.8 stock.

LOL I remember those issues...in the back....OMG I couldn't stop laughing!

Maelfyn

02-04-2002, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by ToyoGT
Supras have traction problems? Since when? And solid rears are almost always going to out launch independent rears....

"What do 400hp, 500hp, and 600hp Supras all have in common? 12 second time slips."

I hear people say this all the time. It doesn't hook up as well as it should.

ToyoGT

02-05-2002, 10:01 AM

Those are almost always the jealous people

ToyoGT

02-05-2002, 10:02 AM

I know you're not flaming and neither am I, but I can't think of ONE Supra(here in the MD/VA area) that makes 400 to the wheels and doesn't do AT LEAST low 12's.

Type-r

03-06-2002, 04:58 PM

Can't wait till the RSX Type-R comes out in late 2002/ early 2003.
i wanna get my hands on one of those!

DeadOn

03-06-2002, 07:09 PM

Ok most of the posters in here are looking at the point of view of racing their cars. I'd like to share my thoughts on why I picked the Celica GTS over the RSX type S for my ride. First off I had an upper budget I was willing to pay of $30k. After narrowing the field, I drove the RSX Type-S, Celica GTS (2001), Celica GT (2001), and the Celica GTS (2002).

I did like the RSX a lot. The engine seemed a bit more powerful, the engine was quieter when reving, it came fully loaded with all the goodies, and it had a better warranty. On the down side the interior seemed really cheap. Acura used a lot more of that crappy metallic plastic than the Celica. The car was about $4k more than the Celica GTS, and it looked..well dorky - sort of like a family sedan, and I wanted something that would stand out more. I chose the Celica. BTW, the shifter on the 2002 was a lot better than the 2001, in fact I would rate it better than the RSX. I thought this would help prevent miss shifts or gear hunting when the car had to get up & move.

To be honest I wouldn't knock any of the cars they are all great, but I'm glad I chose the Celica. In case any of you were wondering, I don't make a habit of running my cars past redline - too many horror stories about messed up motors - the 7900 RPM cut off doesn't bother me. But hell ya I would by a chip that kicked in the lift 500 RPM sooner.